Scientist use a powerful as shit telescope to see something at the center of galaxies

>Some planets make a certain hymn, a music so to speak. A sound.
>This one is just angry Scottish swears. Nobody knows why Scottish.
Fuck.

This is dumb.

fock*

Go read Hellstar Remina for the answer.

Keep in mind that it takes quite a bit of time for light to reach us from that far away, so anything we'd see in the way of facial expressions or movement would be very delayed.

Also, after the stone face of Mars turning out to be a trick of the light the images would need to be 100% clear or most people would believe it was just another trick of the light. Until then, you'd probably just get a few whackjobs converting from other cults or conspiracy theories, and perhaps a contingency plan or two just in case from a few more reputable groups.

Oh, don't worry, he's just one of Veeky Forums's classic armchair scholars.

Writes bullshit to seem smart in order to try and shut down a post he doesn't like.

Not that it even matters, since it's doubtful OP is shooting for "scientific accuracy" anyway.

>What would the "face planets" tell us about our universe?
That aliens like terraforming entire planets for art?

Ok, this should be a simple one then. It's probably similar to a homework problem.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_resolution#Explanation

How big would your telescope need to be to resolve the individual features of a star at the centre of the next nearest galaxy?

Let's say that the "gigantic star" is bigger than the largest star we've ever observed. Let's make it 600,000,000 km in diameter.

The smallest image I'd be willing to accept as a human face is about 10x10 pixels, so let's say that the feature size you need to resolve is 60,000,000 km (6x10^7 km)

And while there are closer satellite galaxies, the first "milestone" galaxy, other than our own, is Andromeda, 2.5 million light-years away. For convenience, let's it's centre is 2.5x10^13 km away from us.

I don't care what wavelength you use, but bear in mind X-ray telescopes have their own lens problems. I'd accept 200nm as a decent compromise, though really, it doesn't matter.

Using this information, you can even figure out how large a telescope array would need to be.

I loled

Nobody?

That assumes the fictional telescope is built by a society with the same knowledge of light and optics that we have. The size of the telescope required could be drastically reduced if they had a better understanding of diffraction functions or yet undiscovered properties of light. Once upon a time people wouldn't think we were capable of recording the chirality of compounds or precision spectrometry. But the equipment to do these things gets better every year.

Notice me planetu-sempai

Not a Veeky Forums thread

This is an area where you can't just handwave it away with "better tech". There isn't some hidden new property of light just waiting to be discovered - this comes up all the time on Veeky Forums. Soft sci-fi has convinced people that neutrinos mutate and you can make lasers out of cold.

If you want to collect information about something far away, you need a biiiig detector to get detailed resolution. You could, in theory, use a smaller detector and a lot of time and computer power (which is how we detect planets), but in this case the scale is still ludicrous if you do the math.

The furthest "planet" we've detected, so far, is 13,000 LY away, and exoplanet hunting is pretty sketchy at best. Luckily, you can watch stars dim ever so slightly and make guesses.

Its not so easy to guess that a start 2.5 million light years away, in a vast array of other stars and gas and dust - the densest part of a galaxy, after all - has a face.

You could take it a step back and talk about information theory - remove the medium of transmission entirely and just consider units of pure information (in this case, photons).

Space is big. It's hilariously, incomprehensibly big. It makes a mockery of any intuitive attempt at scaling up our everyday assumptions.

Doing some quick google calcs and wiki searches...no idea what I'm doing.

spatial resolution(m) = angular resolution(rad)*distance(m), so angular resolution = spatial resolution / distance.

6*10^7 kilometers feature size/2.5*10^23 kilometers distance = 2.4*10^-16 radians angular resolution. So right away we know this is gonna be big.

angular resolution = 1.220*(wavelength(m)/diameter of aperture(m)), so diameter = (1.220*wavelength)/ angular resolution

1.220*(2*10^-7 meters wavelength)/2.4*10^-16 radians = 1016666666.67 meters diameter aperture, or around 79.7 equatorial earth diameters.

Obviously, this is no planet-bound scope. This is more in the area of a Dyson swarm telescope array.

I AM THE SPIRIT OF HARVEST MOON!

>This is an area where you can't just handwave it away with "better tech".
Well duh it's scientifically impossible to make a better telescope. It's also impossible for a galaxy center to have a real face and thought as we know it. While I appreciate your understanding of that I think it's for the best to just sit back and let this fantasy setting have face-galaxies and supertelescopes just like watching people call tomatoes fruit or spiders insects. It doesn't really benefit anyone to correct them there unless they work on something like telescopes, plants or insects for a living.

Don't worry Mr. Harvest, the thread has already been derailed by some people who didn't understand the main premise of the question in favor of assuming an impossibility. They can't prove it's impossible because they don't have a comprehensive theory of physics, but they'd rather ignore the premise anyway.

That said, the effect would probably be a bunch of people yelling "see, intelligent design, and iras dei, and pray more".

Could be a cluster of satellites.

Bump

You can't derail threads on Veeky Forums.

Well, therein lies the rub of where the hell do you put a sphere of satellites 80 earth diameters across? That's a body seven times larger than Jupiter, without (necessarily) gravity to hold it together.

Where do you put it where it doesn't get pulled apart by the first planets just passing by?